Who’s winning in the Democratic Presidential primary? Obama leads in delegates, but Hillary is still viable, right? I mean, she must be ahead somehow since she offered him the VP spot… right?
Well, luckily someone over at DailyKos has compiled some data for us:
- Pledged Delegates (AP’s #s): Obama 1,390; Clinton 1,248
- Popular vote (no MI, FL, or TX caucuses): Obama 13,614,204; Clinton 12,801,153
- Primaries Won: Obama 16, Clinton 12
- Caucuses Won: Obama 14, Clinton 3
- Overall contests Won: Obama 30, Clinton 15
- Red States Won: Obama 16, Clinton 8
- Blue States Won: Obama 11, Clinton 6
- Money Raised through February: Obama $168 million, Clinton $140 million
So, pretty much anyway you dice it, Obama’s dominating this race. Moreover, it is almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to enter the convention with more pledged delegates (and my almost, I mean the New York Times would have to out Obama as client no. 10 for him to lose this). Which means that the only gameplan that the Clintons have left is stealing the nomination through superdelegates. Mind you that if the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate winner it will be absolute pandaemonium within the party, but, you know, who cares about the long-term vitality of our party when we have personal delusions of entitlement to pursue.
Loading ...
Do you think Senator Obama has done enough to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright? I’m not trying to rain on your post. I’m just curious.
I’m not so sure, Michael. Frankly, there is the Rezko stuff coming out (currently on trial) and this wacky religion thing on the front burner. I hope we haven’t waited too long to ask questions about this man. He’s had a free ride from the media while they pounded daily on Hillary.
I’m submit that the states that the Dems will and need to win in November have been won by Hillary Clinton. Winning Idaho doesn’t mean much to me. It hasn’t voted for a Dem in a presidential election since it was incorporated.
And winning traditionally Democratic states that would vote for a canned ham if it had a D behind its’ name is not a reason for Senator Clinton to be nominated. Rather the long, long coattails that an Obama ticket would offer is a reason. Want more strength to our party? Start electing Democrats all up and down the line in traditional Republican strongholds. State houses and senates, mayors and council members along with Congressman being elected Democrats is a meaningful thing.
And on another note… the Clinton campaign is a disgrace. Geraldine Ferraro has single handedly sunk the Clinton campaign for me. I have never in 39 years of voting a straight Democratic ticket ever been so close to leaving the party and becoming an independent. If she would run the country the way she has run the country, we would be in deep trouble. She is tone deaf, arrogant and completely estranged from the American people. She is that idiot Joe Lieberman in a skirt.
If Senator Clinton is the candidate I will of course vote for her but that is the extent of my involvement. No donations. No campaign or party work. I may do some things down ticket but if I even hear the Clinton is piggbacking a mailing, I drop out. Her campaign has me so pissed off that the only thing I compare it to is how I felt about Richard Nixon. That is not a pretty comparison.
Obama is going to destroy the Democratic party before he is done.
“I’m submit that the states that the Dems will and need to win in November have been won by Hillary Clinton. Winning Idaho doesn’t mean much to me. It hasn’t voted for a Dem in a presidential election since it was incorporated.”
I’ll submit that is an incredibly stupid argument. Why would the results of the Democratic primary contests between Obama and Clinton have any bearing on the general election? The important comparision regarding electibility is the matchups with McCain. And the irony is than in a number of states where Clinton beat Obama, Obama actually runs better against McCain than Clinton does.
“Winning Idaho doesn’t mean much to me. It hasn’t voted for a Dem in a presidential election since it was incorporated.”
That statment symbolizes why the Clinton is such a terrible candidate and why her campaign is tanking.
Did anyone see this crap from this Clinton shill complaining about Melendez and Cassutt endorsing Obama? You know this came right from the top. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16663111.html
Dan,
Your first post is right on target. I would add that while we certainly “need” to win California and New York, Clinton is making it sound like there’s a chance in hell we won’t. And that’s of course ridiculous.
I would also say that Clinton’s “states we must win” argument reflects the foolish line of thought that “we’ll win if we can get the ten states that we always get and they pray pray pray that Ohio or Florida jumps on board!”
Barack Obama can win states that we wouldn’t have even thought of prior to 2006. Virginia for example. Missouri for another. Perhaps even North Carolina or Louisiana if things really go well.
As to Dan’s second post. I don’t think that the criticism of Melendez and Cassutt is completely off-base. The desire to have (apparently) neutral party chairs is understandable and rooted in tradition. That said, it was TOTALLY off base to “out” Melendez and Cassutt in the Strib. That’s the type of thing that should be handled within the party, without trying to disparage Barack in the newspaper.
Mike, I guess I’ll take one out of two.
Based on what I know about Melendez (who I think is the best party chair we’ve had in a long time), I always assumed he would come out for Obama. I think he held off on endorsing in the tradition of appearing neutral. When he finally went public, the Minnesota caucuses were over and the race had reached a point where Obama was looking inevitable unless Clinton played dirty. In that context, I think the timing of the endorsement was right. I don’t know anything about Cassutt other than her Obama endorsement, but that’s a good start with me.
As far as how the complaint was handled, I don’t think that Horbal really gives a crap about neutrality - the purpose was to disparage Obama and to take a ridiculous cheap shot at his supporters. This is nothing but more sleaze from the Clinton campaign.
The best part of the Strib article is where Horbal claims that other party chairs (who didn’t sign the letter, but whom she cced) supported her. The one former chair the Strib talked to - Mike Erlandson - said he didn’t agree with the letter, so they wouldn’t print the list of former chairs cced.
I agree with Dan on the Melendez-Cassutt ordeal. After all, they did stay neutral for the entire period over which it has any bearing in this state and then simply voted in line with the overwhelming vote of the state. I don’t see how that’s out of line at all.
Moreover, I have little doubt that Melendez and Cassutt would step into line as good party members and vote for Clinton should she by some profound miracle become the pledged delegate leader at the convention.
And Dan’s right, this is more about putting pressure on Superdelegates and getting at Obama than it is about any legitimate complaint.